Fognini is easily top 30 material and would be if not for missing a large part of the beginning of the season last year. Cilic likewise (in terms of missing a large patch), forgot about him. Both players misses the AO last year I believe.

Klizan is a bit inconsistent, mentally a bit weak, as proven by some of his chokes last season (four Championship points in a Challenger tie-break, lost seven of the next eight points). I do like him though, really hope he can continue to improve. He's defending a lot of points around the USO though so needs a strong first half of this year.

It will certainly be interesting to see who the next players are to crack the top 20. In this day and age it tends to be older players (like Tipsarevic and Kohly) who really push on from the 40's and 50's, or players on injury comebacks (Monfils will surely be back in the top 20/15 if he stays injury free). Younger players like Tomic, Harrison and Dimitrov seem to stall, often showing flashes but struggling for consistency. All three have had good starts to this year though (semi-final, quarter-final + first top 15 win, final).

I'm really looking forward to see how Janowicz fares this year. I still hold the opinion that he's out of position due to the somewhat farcical Paris Masters, although his talent is not deniable. I think most players inside the top 40 could beat him, especially outdoors. Will be interesting to see if he can really live up to his new ranking though or if he does struggle a little bit.

I don't blame these players if they are not consistent enough or mentally weak. The top is so strong these days that it doesn't leave much hope for the young ones. Or perhaps they are just not good enough. Because Sampras had it really tough initially; in fact, it is said that the 80s were the golden eras of tennis and the field was crowded with legends and yet, Sampras didn't waste any time to make his own place as soon as he got into the picture. Of course the field opened up later on but he made his mark long before and left no doubt. That's when and why I wonder if the likes of Tomic, Harrison, Dimitrov, Raonic have any real potential or they are simply just hyped up. Raonic is, of course, leading the race with the most potential but I don't think he's made as big a noise as it had been made out at first.

Now the 2nd sets of players like Klizan, Janowicz or even Rosol could just be a fluke but I do hope they do consistently well in their career.

You are right about older generation putting out more consistent results foward these days or peaking up than the younger ones, but it does take some time to build up that momentum. Also, it's more than likely that we will see 2/3 brand new players coming into terms even if they are not from this generation. Andy took some time to win his first Major but both Nole and Andy were consistent enough to be in the top ten almost immediately. So my guess is the current bunch is not as good as the top bunch to begin with.

True, but Nole usually tends to come out of the gate running, whereas Andy tends to be a bit slower off the pace and creates hurdles to jump.I agree tho' that Milos can take anyone out on anyone's 'off' day, but it would be a major upset at a Slam imho.

They have yet to play each other so it's hard to comment but Nole typically struggles slightly against big servers especially if they are very consistent. Even so, Nole is most likely to win their first meeting or even a few. Raonic needs to get used to Nole before he can command a win over Nole. Raonic is very mental so he'll be very nervous against Noel and that will hamper his main strength - his serve.

..In an age of two-fisted conformity, Federer has never compromised his inclination to adorn tennis with the unique skills that separate him from his peers. As irrelevant as sport might appear alongside more profound human endeavours, he consistently brings such powerful grandeur to his work as to raise it above the mundane, painting wondrous arcs in the air, his feet winged and his racket an extension of his subtle intentions. There is no lovelier sight in tennis than Federer twisting late on his toes to plant a cross-court howitzer an inch inside the line – except maybe when he does it down the line with his glorious, single-levered backhand, an antique to be treasured.

..We should savour his gifts as long as he sees fit to dispense them. In the end, his tennis, as much as his glow of smiling flawlessness, is what should matter about the man.

..In an age of two-fisted conformity, Federer has never compromised his inclination to adorn tennis with the unique skills that separate him from his peers. As irrelevant as sport might appear alongside more profound human endeavours, he consistently brings such powerful grandeur to his work as to raise it above the mundane, painting wondrous arcs in the air, his feet winged and his racket an extension of his subtle intentions. There is no lovelier sight in tennis than Federer twisting late on his toes to plant a cross-court howitzer an inch inside the line – except maybe when he does it down the line with his glorious, single-levered backhand, an antique to be treasured.

..We should savour his gifts as long as he sees fit to dispense them. In the end, his tennis, as much as his glow of smiling flawlessness, is what should matter about the man.

I read the whole article with growing incredulity. Whatever Kevin Mitchell is on, I want some of it!

And as for RF's biographer, Rene Stauffer - "He is modest, unpretentious, loyal, well-balanced, dependable and sympathetic. Has anybody ever found Roger Federer to be unpleasant, a braggart, an arrogant snob?"

Interesting though that Mitchell claims that "at least one player in the locker room knows who PseudoFed is." If that's true then I hope they continue to keep that knowledge to themselves.

I read the whole article with growing incredulity. Whatever Kevin Mitchell is on, I want some of it!

And as for RF's biographer, Rene Stauffer - "He is modest, unpretentious, loyal, well-balanced, dependable and sympathetic. Has anybody ever found Roger Federer to be unpleasant, a braggart, an arrogant snob?"

Interesting though that Mitchell claims that "at least one player in the locker room knows who PseudoFed is." If that's true then I hope they continue to keep that knowledge to themselves.

Kevin Mitchell is actually one of the few tennis journalists to consistently take issue with the sycophancy displayed towards Federer and gets crucified on the Guardian comment sections by Fedtards for it. I suspect he's taking the piss here.

Ferrer's preperations for the AO are on track - he's just taken the title in Auckland for the 4th consecutive year. He won 7-6 6-1 despite being a break down in the first set. I'm guessing that the Spanish that was being banded about during that first set was a tad colourful.

Kevin Mitchell is actually one of the few tennis journalists to consistently take issue with the sycophancy displayed towards Federer and gets crucified on the Guardian comment sections by Fedtards for it. I suspect he's taking the piss here.

I didn't know that. It would certainly explain the OTT tone of that article.